Template talk:Ingredient Summary

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search

Include Creature/Flora image in template?[edit]

I'm planning on adding images of the Flora and Creatures associated with the ingredients. Is it a good idea to alter the template to include a parameter for such an image (like with Template:NPC Summary) ? And where should such an image be placed? --Timenn 17:20, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Yep, I'd say for consistency if nothing else it should be added to the template. It also means that if we decide later that we don't like any details about the image, it's much easier to tweak position/size/format/etc.
Unfortunately, right now "image" is being used for the icon rather than a screenshot. Longterm I think it would be better to switch the current "image" parameter to a name like "icon", and free up "image" to be used for screenshots, just like all the other infobox summaries. If others agree, I can get the bot to do the switch, so it won't be an ordeal to implement.
As for where the new screenshots should go, that's a good question. In part I think it depends what we want to do with plants requiring multiple screenshots (e.g., Oblivion:Harrada). I'd propose to just have one representative screenshot that gets used in the template (in a case like Harrada, maybe a screenshot that shows multiple varieties next to each other). Then if a comparison of varieties is needed, or for whatever reason additional screenshots are warranted, those get added manually to the page outside of the template. I think overall that's a lot easier to manage than setting up the template to know what to do in every oddball case that comes up.
The obvious place for the screenshot is left-aligned like the NPC pages, for example. But I'm actually wondering whether placing the screenshot at the bottom of the infobox makes more sense in this case. On the NPC pages the problem (I think) is that 90% of the NPC pages have just one paragraph of text. So I think it just looks unbalanced to have a page-long infobox on the right side of the page, and two lines of text filling up the remaining three quarters of the page. Especially given that a lot of the NPC shots are tall and narrow (e.g., Morrowind:Sugar-Lips Habasi), so the picture would actually go off the page for many readers. But for the ingredients I don't think we have the same problem of too-little-text, too-much-infobox (the only examples of that right now are incomplete pages that long-term will be fleshed out with much more info). So I think the pages would look better overall with the image added into the infobox. Does that work for everyone else? --NepheleTalk 18:37, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
It works - provided we define a standard size for flora images. Images in the Infobox for NPCs would have worked if people had just taken head-shots, but it's those tall, full-body shots that make it less practical. Keeping the images roughly square would work better for flora images, and give them a standard look. (It would also be similar to the biology infoboxes used on Wikipedia...) --TheRealLurlock Talk 18:51, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
A 4:3 ratio is good enough I think. Just take a screenshot, and edit it to reduce the resolution a few steps (e.g. 1280x960 -> 800x600) by reducing the canvas size (the image won't scale) so you have a nice zoom in of the target.
Looking at any ingredient page makes me think that the best place for an image would be under the infobox. Just like you said there is much more information on an ingredient than there is on the average NPC. In case an ingredient needs more images they can just be added on the ingredient's page itself. I think there are few more that need multiple images (e.g. Scamp Skin is not found on Stunted Scamps).
On a side note, there are already excellent images of creatures at 4:3 format, so those can be re-used for the ingredients.
I've gone ahead and updated the template to show the screenshot at the bottom of the infobox; I used Oblivion:Clannfear Claws as an example. Right now, the screenshot is just being displayed using the default thumbnail size (so most readers will get a 150 px thumbnail). Unless you're using a pretty small screen, the screenshot doesn't fill up the full width of the infobox. I just experimented a bit. If the thumbnail is set to 300px, it will fill the infobox (but not increase the size of the infobox, at least not in firefox). I think that looks better, but before changing the template again I wanted to get more feedback.
Also, right now the template is set up somewhat bizarrely so that existing pages will continue to work (even though the icon is being supplied using the image parameter), but yet screenshots can still be added. Once all the ingredient pages can be updated so they're all using |icon= for the icon, then I'll modify the template again and get rid of some of the ugly trickery.
For anyone who wants to update ingredient pages in the meantime the imgdesc parameter is critical. If imgdesc (or ImgDesc) is provided, the template will treat the page as a new-format page: |image= is taken to be the screenshot; |icon= is taken to be the icon. Without imgdesc, any |image= or |icon= will be taken to be the icon. So if you want to add screenshots be sure to provide the imgdesc, and change the icon over to |icon=. And I'll make sure the bot doesn't try to mess with any such updated pages. --NepheleTalk 17:30, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
OK, I finally got around to running the bot and getting all the pages that use this template updated. So I've also now cleaned up the odd coding that was there to temporarily allow both old-format and new-format images. No point in making these templates even more complicated than they need to be ;) --NepheleTalk 02:58, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

I've added the last creature and flora images to their respective Oblivion ingredient pages. I believe Rpeh has done the same for the Shivering Isles? I think that's that for the Ingedient images until someone wants to add all in-game images of the ingredients. --Timenn 10:13, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

I was wondering about in-game images but since most of them are unidentifiable blobs I decided against it. There are some images even I won't bother with! --RpehTCE 11:39, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
Most ingredients turn out to be coloured blobs indeed, but not necessarily all ingredients need to have an in-game image. I'm mostly talking about ingredients you cannot find on creatures or flora. Or such ingredients you can often find at tables (Apples and such) At least those don't look like blobs... :-) --Timenn 18:12, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Add an "AddBelow" parameter[edit]

Would it be an good idea to add an "addbelow" parameter to the template? I'm having difficulties in adding multiple images to the Ingredient articles. The alignment never really works, and its position is not totally independent from the content. (See Bergamot Seeds as an example).
This parameter will make sure that the additional images are also in the summary's div element.

Also (as just an aesthetical request from me), an image provided by the "image" parameter should be placed outside the table's borders. There is now too much padding on the left and right, and the image will better blend in with the additional images (if any). --Timenn 06:32, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

I've fiddled around a bit with the template, and I think I've found something that will work. I've tried it out on the Harrada article, as that one will probably have the most images (5). See User:Timenn/Sandbox/5/ for an example, and User:Timenn/Sandbox/5/Template for the code for the template.
What I did was made a wrapper div element around the entire ingredient summary (instead of right aligning the table), placed the image provided through the "image" parameter outside the table, and added support for the "addbelow" parameter. --Timenn 04:04, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Hmm. Not sure about that to be honest. I can see why you wanted to remove the box but now it looks odd where, for instance, the line under "Bugs" crosses the images. Also, there's still a lot of padding around the images. It doesn't show up on this page but it would on some of the others. I had already modified the template to add an "image2" parameter (see this), and I'd suggest that adding image3, image4 and image5 params is the way to go. I'd be interested to hear what other people think though. --RpehTalk 07:46, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
I think working with multiple image parameters would result in the same as using an addbelow parameter. That is a matter preference on how it will work internally. Either way the real discussion is on whether the images should be placed inside, or outside the table. The reason I opted for outside is because there was too much padding on the left and right of the image, and because the result looked like a box (of the thumbnail) in another box (of the table).
The way the line under "Bugs" crosses the image in the example is, I think, a rare case. Harrada seems to be the plant with the biggest amount of distinguishable varieties, thus the most images. Usually the images don't go lower than the map image. -Timenn 06:43, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
Overall, I think that adding the images using image2, image3, etc. instead of addbelow is better in the long run, at least as long as the only intended use of addbelow would be for adding extra images. All of the wiki formatting is then placed inside the template, instead of half of it in the template (for the first image) and half of it outside (in the manually added text for the addbelow parameter). If someone later wants to tweak the image formatting in whatever way, then all of the images can be updated by editing the template. The question of whether the images should be located inside or outside of the infobox is really a separate question that can be determined independently of how the parameters are enterered.
I mentioned the issue with the padding above when I described the updates I made to this template. Unfortunately, my first assessment of it being easy to fix by adding an explicit width to the image size was a bit overly optimistic. I've now taken care of the padding by forcing the width of the entire box to always be 310px (whereas before it was 33% of the page width, and would therefore shrink itself for people using smaller monitors).
If you'd rather keep the images at the smaller size (or rather at the user default size) and move them outside of the box, I think they would look better right-aligned instead of centered under the box. Although even then, there is still a padding problem: there will be extra blank space between the text and the images. --NepheleTalk 21:26, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
I like that. I think it would be even better if there wasn't the line between the images, which would help the "box within a box" problem, but let's see what Timenn thinks before one of us a) does that, and b) adds image3, 4 and 5 parameters. --RpehTalk 13:13, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
Nephele you convinced me of placing the image formatting inside a single page (the template), rather than in seperate articles using an addbelow parameter. It's just that the "image2, image3, etc..." solution isn't very solid. For example, Harrada will have the most images (5), so 5 (x2) image parameters are needed. If someone wanted to add an additional image (e.g. an image of the ingredient itself) the template has to be altered. I don't see a solution for that though, as far as I know Wiki language has no arrays or parsers.
I'm not sure about the resized thumbnails. They solve the padding problem, but they just look too big and it won't look good if there are too many images (bottom-left of the page will be empty). I think right-aligning the images looks better, and placing them outside the table (or at least visibly).
In any case, whatever the solution, the result will be better than placing loose images in the articles :-) --Timenn 09:44, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
You're right about image2, image3 etc. It's nasty and there's no way around it. I had a look at some Wikipedia templates the other day and they've had to resort to multiple params too (I think theirs went up to 15). It's a nasty little hack and I'm sure there'll be a fix in a future update of the wiki software. I know what you mean about images. On my monitor they look fine because I use a thumb size of 300 anyway, but I don't like messing with the size of thumbnails on principle as it's overriding a user preference. In this case, however, I don't think there's a better solution if we want to have images. --RpehTalk 14:04, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
I've added image3, image4, and image5, so for now at least there should be enough image parameters. I agree it's not an elegant solution, but it does work. I also experimented with moving the images under the infobox and right aligning them. There's some residual padding around the images (probably coming from the CSS for the thumbnails), so they don't really right align with the infobox, but I think it looks better than center-aligned under the infobox. (FYI, one example of a three-image plant is at Oblivion:Flax Seeds.) So should we settle for this look? Or are there new ideas for how to tweak the image locations? --NepheleTalk 00:40, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
It's not too bad I suppose, but I still think it'd look better in the box. This was there's a huge dead space to the left of the images although at least it won't be too much of an issue because most ingredient pages don't have enough text to cross it. --RpehTalk 02:58, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

There are a few reasons why I opted to try moving the images outside of the box. It allows readers to continue to use their default preferences for thumbnail sizes. It allows the infobox to adjust its width based on the page size, which is also more reader-friendly, especially for readers using narrow windoes. And as soon as you have more than two images, the large-format images really just start to take up too much vertical space, IMO.

As for the dead space to the right of the images, it's definitely not ideal. But on many pages the text doesn't fill the page width anyway, so the dead space would already be there. And the dead space never becomes extreme: if there's enough dead space for two images to be side-by-side under the infobox, then the images will split into two columns.

Basically, I think either option is less than perfect. But outside-the-box seems to have fewer drawbacks. --NepheleTalk 23:45, 24 September 2007 (EDT)


Is it just me, or does it bother anybody else that the source for non-plant-based non-body-part ingredients , such as Bees and Chaurus Eggs, is labeled as a "plant" in the template? I know it's not a huge deal, but it just seems imprecise. Could we add another option to the template to cover these? --XyzzyTalk 13:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Good point. What if we changed "Plant" to something like "Source" and then changed the parameter name, either by bot or by allowing either word? The one small issue I have with that is that we'd also have to change "# Plants", and I'm not sure "# Sources" sounds quite right. There are several other possibilities, like adding new parameters to control what word is displayed, but I think using something more generic is the easiest change. Robin Hoodtalk 16:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Image use in template for Online pages[edit]

I'm fleshing out the individual reagent pages linked from the overview page and I've run into a problem. Unlike ingredients in previous games, there really isn't much to tell for reagents. They're found across all factions (the only restrictions I've found is that some aren't found in starter zones) and don't have set places to respawn. This lack of information means, if I use the current image parameter, there's going to be one or two sentences of text on the left and then the infobox + node image on the right, severely unbalancing the page. For an example, see what happened with blue entoloma. So my question is, should I ignore the parameter entirely and put the screenshot on the left as a thumb, or keep it where it is? -- likelolwhat talk lulzy to me 23:24, 9 December 2014 (GMT)

I don't think it'll be that unbalanced once it is full. See Blue Mountain Flower for an example of a page with just the node-image. There are things you can say about the blue entoloma, such as it is found mainly in caves and under trees, talk about which types of potions it can be used for (and what you combine it with to get those potions). Jeancey (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2014 (GMT)
Alright, that makes sense. Thank you. --likelolwhat talk lulzy to me 23:48, 9 December 2014 (GMT)
There may not be set places that Blue Entoloma can spawn, but there are specific areas which will contain a certain type of reagent node. For example, there will always be a Flower node in each of the small corner plots behind the Temple of Light in the Hollow City. Each reagent can be classed as either a Flower, a Mushroom, or a Water Plant, and there are specific places where each type of node will appear. Water plants appear beside lakes and rivers, flowers appear in open and wooded grassy areas, and mushrooms appear in the shade of rocks and trees. --Enodoc (talk) 09:48, 10 December 2014 (GMT)